Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Was Harm Hidden Or Fabricated?

     At last! Something from the Right that I can quibble with!

     First, it is also disgraceful for the New York Times to report without balance that “Prosecutors … presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of [Manning’s] leaks.” As the Times well knows, in cases involving classified information, the government frequently cannot reveal – let alone prosecute – the damage done. As a practical matter, such revelations end up disclosing more classified information and, critically, identifying other informants and countries who have covertly provided national-security assistance to the United States. That is why it is always a gimmee for apologists of the Mannings, Snowdens, and Clintons to minimize the harm they have done; it is generally impossible to provide concrete information to counter this claim absent exposing more intelligence and endangering sources for obtaining it.

     Objectively, the statements above are all factual. But is that the end of the story?

     If we allow for the possibility that a government official with power or influence over prosecutions might decide to “get” someone, Andrew McCarthy’s willingness to excuse the prosecution’s failure to provide specific evidence of harm done by the accused acquires a very dark cast.

     This is of great importance in federal prosecutions, because it is there that classification rules and security considerations apply. No doubt there are many varieties of allegations in which the attempt to cite national security as a reason for withholding evidence would provoke laughter. But there are surely enough offenses in which national-security considerations must be granted respect...and some of those allow for a wide range of sentences.

     Allow me to present an extreme case: an accusation of treason, which can carry the death penalty. The Constitution says:

     Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. [Article III< Section 3, first paragraph.]

     A government with the resources of ours has many ways to induce “two Witnesses” to testify that they observed “the same overt Act,” even if it never occurred. The defense might well demand to see confirming evidence in such a case; indeed, a competent defense lawyer would not fail to do so. But at that point up steps the Director of National Intelligence to say that no such evidence can be presented because of national security.

     What then? We have the testimony of “two Witnesses to the same overt Act,” and under the Constitution the jury is permitted to find that sufficient for a conviction. That conviction might be just...but it might not be, and there’s no way for anyone who did not witness the Act to know.

     This is only one of the many painful problems with a regime that’s empowered to keep secrets from the public at its own discretion. That some “matters of State” must be kept secret for the “common defense and general welfare of the United States” remains an arguable point. It becomes more arguable when one contemplates judicial proceedings such as that imagined here.

Too Easy

     It’s become too easy to write these pieces, day after day.

     You might find that to be an unusual complaint. Not having polled others who write sociopolitical opinion for the Web, I wouldn’t know. However, it’s at the core of my dissatisfactions. It robs what I’ve been doing these past twenty years of its point.

     The conflicts are too many and too stark. The cleavages are too absolute. The behavior of the openly involved parties is too cartoonish. The talents of a Jonathan Swift would be wasted on them. Hell, they don’t challenge my far more modest talents terribly much.

     The country needs a break. Yes, I need one too, though knowing my own proclivities I doubt I’ll take one. The need of the United States of America is far greater.

     But it doesn’t look as if we’re about to get one.


     Have you seen the latest revelations from Project Veritas?

     I do hope you watched that with attention, all the way to the end. I have no idea how many Leftist vermin are engaged in the plans revealed above. One would be too many, and it appears that considerably more than one want to participate. Perhaps having been exposed by Project Veritas will put a damper on their assaultive, destructive plans. That would be for the best, but the underlying mindset is what matters most.

     More than four years ago, I wrote that America is in a state of civil war. It was an “undeclared” war back then; conditions are different today. The PV videos show us a group plotting to prevent a political transition by shutting down a city and physically assaulting those who differ with it. If that doesn’t constitute an admission of outright warfare, I can’t imagine what would qualify.

     War journalism is the easiest sort to write. (Not to collect, mind you.) The battles occur right before your eyes; all you need to do is recount the events. Unless there is a great moral reawakening among those who wish us harm, that’s the sort we of the Internet Commentariat will be writing for some time.

     It’s not a cheery prospect.


     I don’t travel much, these days. I got my fill of it long ago. The last time I got on an airplane was seventeen years ago. I don’t expect to board one in the foreseeable future. As a conduit for the events and sentiments of distant places, the Internet suffices for now.

     These past few years that conduit has reported mostly anger and fear. The fears are politically, economically, and socially determined; the anger is general. Such are the wages of the war in progress: a war that until recently was being fought by one side while the other strove to ignore its existence.

     It’s a difficult war to name. At first blush it seems to have the character of George Alec Effingers’s short story “All The Last Wars At Once.” I tend to see it in a different light:

     Mark's waking life was now divided between periods by the Sleeper's bedside and periods in the room with the spotted ceiling. The training in objectivity which took place in the latter cannot be described; the details would be unprintable and had, indeed, a "kind of nursery fatuity about them which is best ignored. There indeed lay the horror-to perform petty obscenities which a silly child might have thought funny under the unchangingly serious inspection of Frost, with a stop watch and a note-book and all the ritual of experiment. And day by day, as the process went on, that idea of the Straight or the Normal which had occurred to him during his first visit to this room, grew stronger and more solid in his mind till it became a kind of mountain. He had never before known what an Idea meant. [C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength]

     I don’t think any exertion of mine could make it clearer.


     I don’t want to be at war. Most people I know would say the same. Even professional soldiers don’t look forward to war, despite the boredom of the peacetime barracks. Most fight because they must, because it’s been forced upon them; very few fight because they enjoy it.

     But here we are. Covert war is being displaced by open war, war that kills and destroys. The Constitutional procedures and social traditions of two centuries and more are being shoved aside. It was not we of the Straight and Normal side who sought to do so.

     The Left wants war. It wants it because it knows that we don’t want it – and because no other course could possibly restore its ascendancy.

     If you came here looking for jubilance or reassurance, my apologies. In light of the most recent events and reports, my triumphal mood of a few days ago has darkened. We’re going to be forced to fight.

     Have a nice day. Hope to see you on the other side.

Canadian police chase.

Thanks to Wanda Sheratt, commenter at Liberty's Torch on another video of great Canadian humor.

Establishment Republican Manifesto.

Reformed Trombonist replies to no mo uro:
> Doesn't mean he shouldn't try, just because the task at hand is difficult.

I can see you never mastered the Establishment Republican Manifesto...

Never fight; you might lose.

"DisruptJ20 Dramatically Scales Back Plans to Sabotage Inauguration After Project Veritas Sting." By Debra Heine, PJ Media, 1/17/17.

Mistakes was made.

The [U.S. government report on its bombing on September 17, 2016] then is saying the bloody Deir ez-Zor bombing was not the result of one error, but the result of a very long string of unexplained errors piled on top of each other. At so many steps along the way the planned strike could be recognized as being destined to hit Syrian soldiers but every time a freak mistake interceded.[1]
Mr. Hill makes no mention of what signals intelligence revealed about this Syrian Arab Army (SAA) position, occupied for some six months before the "Coalition" attack on it.

Let's focus on that.

It beggars the imagination that there was no SIGINT collection activity in Syria or that its requirements would not have included targeting all the areas in and around Deir ez-Zor.

On the contrary, SIGINT operations had to have been underway and, as the night follows day, they revealed that radio transmissions out of and into the site targeted were SAA comms. There would have been no reason for the SAA to have been under radio silence and whether or not their transmissions were encrypted they would have been on frequencies and using equipment known to be used by the SAA. It would have been child's play to identify whose radios those were at that site, particularly as the unit's traffic would have been answered by headquarters units located in Syrian government-controlled territory AND adjacent Syrian units in the immediate area.

By way of comparison, the Russians and Syrians maintained a SIGINT facility near al-Hara which "was responsible for recording and decrypting radio communications from every rebel group operating inside Syria."[2] Note the use of the language "decrypting," "every," "rebel," and "inside Syria."

Are we to believe that the U.S. has no such capability in Syria and had no interest in radio traffic out of and into the site it struck? This willful ignorance, this supposed ignorance, of the U.S. forces is not believable. That targeted unit sat there for some six months and the U.S. gleaned no information as to its identity from radio traffic, let alone from (a) other photographic evidence and (b) the logical role that unit played in Syrian defenses rather than ISIS defenses? Really? It really struck analysts and commanders as being part of the ISIS dispositions?

In point of fact, the U.S. has a SIGINT capability that is astonishing. We used it in Iraq to devastating effect and anyone who says the exact communication network of ISIS around Deir ez-Zor wasn't also later known in detail to U.S. forces operating in Syria[3] is a liar.

And this has implications respecting what we most assuredly know about ISIS and al-Qaida communications everywhere in Syria and, hence, about the dispositions and movements of those swine, and about the clearly pretend war that the U.S. has "waged" against its ISIS and al-Qaida allies in this dirty war. Read the Shane Harris article cited in the notes below and then tell me that ISIS and al-Qaida units cannot and could not be hounded to death by highly targeted "Coalition" military operations. Yet, inexplicably, mysteriously, ISIS lives on and on and on. It's just so hard to find them.

Alternative explanation: The U.S. is lying about not knowing the unit it struck on September 17, 2016 was a unit of the SAA. There was no mistake involved. The U.S. commander intended to attack a Syrian government position.

Notes
[1] "Its Own Report Data Indicates Pentagon's Slaughter of 100 Syrian Troops in Deir ez-Zor Was Deliberate." By Adam Hill, Russia Insider, 12/8/16.
[2] "Captured Russian spy facility reveals the extent of Russian aid to the Assad regime." By Oryxspioenkop, Oryx Blog, 10/6/14.
[3] "How the NSA Became a Killing Machine." By Shane Harris, The Daily Beast, 11/9/14. Money quote: "This was the most sophisticated global tracking system ever devised, and it worked with lethal efficiency."

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Gun Free Zones: A Sermonette

     This just came my way on Gab.ai:

     I can’t help but think there’s “too much truth” there for the typical anti-gunner to fathom.

International Political Meddlers

     A scorpion, desirous of crossing a river, approached a frog and requested the favor of transport. The frog was dubious. “If you were to sting me, I would die.” The scorpion assured the frog that it had no such intention. Besides, the scorpion said, it could not swim and would drown if it were to harm its benefactor. Thus persuaded, the frog allowed the scorpion to mount its back, and their traversal of the river commenced.
     When they were at the midpoint of the river, the scorpion drove its stinger into the frog’s back, injecting a lethal amount of venom into it. As the frog’s life faded, it cried out, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die!” The other replied, “I’m a scorpion. It’s my nature.”

     [Origin and originator unknown.]

     Just this morning, an Australian lady I follow on Gab.ai posted this:

     For some reason, it seems that many Australians seem to think that they have a say when it comes to American politics There have been multiple protests against Trump over the last few months here.

     It pricked a memory, which I decided to post:

     In 2004 a gaggle of British writers (including David Cornwall a.k.a. "John Le Carre") tried to promote the notion that everyone in the world has a right to vote in American elections, "because America affects everything everywhere." Few people remember that.

     That election, you may recall, was Bush II vs. Kerry. It was decided by a single state: Ohio. The Britons arguing for international participation in our elections were, of course, on Kerry’s side and against a second term for Dubya. Had they gotten their wish, perhaps Kerry would have won. His politics were more compatible with European social-democratic notions than those of George W. Bush.

     It casts a strange light on the current foofaurauw over supposed Russian “interference” in our most recent election.


     It’s common knowledge, or should be, that the last time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood for re-election, the Obama Administration sent personnel and funds to Israel to aid Netanyahu’s opponent. What’s not common knowledge is how often the major powers of the world do similar things. If this should become more widely known as a consequence of November 8, 2016, it can only be for the best.

     Governments are both one another’s allies and one another’s competitors. When the government of Brux sees a chance to “improve relations” with the government of Wazznia by attempting to influence Wazznian elections, it’s more likely than not to do so. Of course, the “improvement” sought might not strike the citizens of Wazznia as such. Indeed, the desired “improvement” might not be to the taste of the citizens of Brux, either. That’s in the nature of government-to-government relations.

     The key to the mystery is a distasteful realization:

Every government on Earth is in business for itself above all else.


     "Government's a dubious glory...You pay for your power and wealth by balancing on the sharp edge of the blade. That great amorphous thing out there -- the people -- has turned and swallowed many governments. They can do it in the flash of an angry uprising. The way you prevent that is by giving good government, not perfect government -- but good. Otherwise, sooner or later, your turn comes." [Frank Herbert, The Godmakers ]

     There’s no comprehending the behavior of governments or the persons who rise to power in them without first confronting that simple truth.

  • Governments as institutions seek to perpetuate themselves.
  • Those who run governments seek to perpetuate (and if possible increase) their power.
  • Those subject to governments are sheep to be shorn: no more, no less.

     Governments face two threats: revolution and conquest. Governors face those plus (in some countries) the possibility of being replaced. Even in supposed democracies, the first consideration any politician addresses when confronted by some question is how the alternatives would bear on his future. Even in supposedly divided governments, the opposing parties will cooperate and collaborate to perpetuate or reinforce the status quo. By now Americans should have had ample evidence of that.

     Whenever one government attempts to sway an election (or any other method of determining access to power) in another nation, its masters have one of those considerations in mind. If any question remains, it would be the specific nature of the consideration: military, economic, sociological, demographic, or other.


     Just yesterday, a fellow I was interviewing for a job I have in mind mentioned offhand his belief that I’m an anarchist. I suppose much of what I’ve said and written will support that belief. But at the bedrock level, I’m a believer in and advocate of individual freedom. That is: in any particular place, time, and demo-sociological context, whatever form of social organization will best support the maximum degree of individual freedom for the persons involved is what I would favor.

     The recorded history of the world has known several anarchisms. Pre-Roman Empire Sumer. Medieval Ireland and Iceland. In a de facto sense, the frontier American West of the Nineteenth Century. While they lasted, they were pretty good at keeping their “citizens” free and unencumbered. Yet none of them lasted, because at some point their “citizens” either chose a government or were subjected to one and failed to resist it effectively.

     Were the anarchisms that preceded those points preferable to what followed? Why not consult those who allowed governments to displace their previous arrangements? Don’t their historically recorded decisions and actions answer us pretty clearly? But contrariwise, don’t the decision and actions of their ancestors, who threw off the States over them in an openly expressed preference for anarchism, give the opposite answer?

     I wrote in the Foreword to Freedom’s Fury:

     I’m horrified by politics and all its fruits. I consider the use of coercive force against innocent men the greatest of all the evils we know. But I try, most sincerely, to be realistic about the world around us. In that world, peopled by men such as ourselves, anarchism—the complete abjuration and avoidance of the State—is unstable. In time, it will always give way to politics. Hammer it to the earth as many times as you may, you will never succeed in killing it permanently. The State will rise again.
     However, as we’ve learned to our sorrow these past few centuries, the State is unstable, too. It always deteriorates and falls, though not always swiftly. What follows it varies from place to place and era to era.

     While there are States, they will meddle with one another.
     Sometimes the meddling will go unnoticed.
     Sometimes it will only elicit comment.
     Sometimes there will be reprisals.
     Sometimes, there will be war.

     It is in the nature of these inherently savage beasts.

Bill Clinton on illegal immigration.

Clearly, a hater.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Patterns And Models

     Among the advantages one accrues as the years pass is the acceptance of and surrender to change. Things change, and we must be prepared to adjust. It appears to be the one constant in all of temporal existence.

     And now, as I look back on that paragraph, I feel a smile rising. Of course things change! What would be the point of time if they didn’t? But it’s incumbent upon us to decide on the direction and magnitude of our adjustments.

     In some cases, and for some persons, the proper adjustment is to fight.


     Among the changes uppermost in my thoughts today is a particular kind of homogenization that’s been urged upon us, all unawares, by the major media. When I was a lad, there were many acceptable ways to...be a lad. Here are a few:

  • The boy boy: Horsed around with the other neighborhood boys; stinted on schoolwork in favor of play and miscellaneous boy-type mischief; generally aspired to adulthood and its mysterious pleasures forbidden to the underage.
  • The bookish boy: Spent a lot of time reading, exploring the sciences and the realms of imagination. Dreamed of becoming a scientist, or perhaps an astronaut.
  • The sports boy: Obsessed with his skills and accomplishments at his preferred sport. Put a lot of time and effort into getting better at it, in hope of making it his adult career.
  • The artsy boy: Pursued one of the arts: singing, playing, dancing, painting, sculpting, what have you.
  • The church boy: delved deeply into his religious faith, its origins and its tenets. Perhaps aimed at becoming a priest or a minister.

     I remember these well, because at one point or another in my maturation I was each one. I remember equally clearly how boys in each category tended to look down on all the others. But most important of all is that each category was accorded a certain legitimacy, as an “accepted course” of boyhood.

     Yes, parental influences played their part. Many a father tried to coax (or coerce) his sons out of their preferences. Some succeeded, though whether that was for the best was always open to question. The point is that none of the categories was regarded as so aberrant that it had to be expunged. Parents who were displeased with their sons’ category would mostly tell themselves that “he’ll grow out of it.” Sometimes we did.

     With the rise of the mass media, especially television with its imagistic powers, certain categories acquired a stigmatic overlay, a sort of subliminal “don’t be like this” with which boys of the generations subsequent to mine had to cope. Some withstood those influences and matured to become healthy men; those that didn’t had a rough time of it. The stresses might help to explain some of the social pathologies we endure today.


     The most important aspect of the legitimization of those diverse courses toward juvenile masculinity was that no matter which of them little Johnny occupied, he was not alone. He would have confreres, other boys in his chosen category who saw things roughly the same way and who accepted him as “one of us.” Acceptance by a group of the like-minded is critical to one’s sense of security, as Abraham Maslow has told us. Few “lone wolves” turn out well.

     Boys of our time are subtly urged by the media to “be like this,” where “this” is a pattern displayed by a promoted model: one of the characters in the entertainment being pushed upon them. Those patterns sometimes change, though in recent years they’ve exhibited a certain consistency. The power of the influence exerted will depend on the appeal, achievements, and general notoriety of the model. That will be the case even when the model is obviously neurotic, psychotic, or defective of character.

     This might seem unclear until mated to a compelling example. Consider in this regard a popular situation comedy: The Big Bang Theory. The several deficiencies of the major protagonist, Sheldon, are both pronounced and consistent. The message being conveyed is plain: “This is what science nerds are like.” To some boys, that will be an effective discouragement against choosing that category (bookish boy). To others, it will say “if you intend to be a science nerd, you must go the whole way and be like this.

     Neither set of pressures is good for those it presses.


     This is on my mind because of a phenomenon that might seem at first to be unrelated: transgenderism. Now as it happens, I have an acquaintance who decided some years ago that despite the Y chromosome in each and every cell of his body, he is nevertheless a woman. He’s gone most of the way in that direction. And he is a mentally sick, almost completely nonfunctional individual.

     This is not to say that all decisions to “transition” (a word that will eventually lose every other meaning it once possessed) are insane, nor that every individual who does so will turn out badly. Here’s a case that appears to be successful, although the transition is not yet complete. However, the typical individual who aims in that direction might be a victim of categorization-stereotype pressures. Indeed, I think it more likely than not to be the case.

     Imagine a boy who finds himself drawn to the arts and completely indifferent to “boy boy” or “sports boy” inclinations. Imagine that his father is something like Robert Duvall’s character in The Great Santini, or Colonel Fitts in American Beauty. Intensify those pressures with relentless entertainment media portrayals of artistically inclined young men as fops at best, homosexuals at worst. Simmer for eighteen years, stir, and serve.

     Get the picture?


     Very little of one’s personality or character remain to be formed after puberty. It’s pretty much all there, and pretty much set for life. Today’s boys' lives are overfilled with stereotypes, particularly categorization stereotypes, that can warp them permanently.

     Our boys need counterexamples to those stereotypes: healthy, accomplished adult men in each of the categories who undermine the stereotypes by diverging radically from them. Such counterexamples exist. They don’t get nearly as much exposure as we need them to get.

     In our time, parenting is a frustrating and difficult job. The entertainment media make it far harder than it once was, and not merely by its commercial enticements. Once again I find myself compelled to write a five-word sentence two of whose words are on my Anathema List:

     The moral should be obvious.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Late-Arriving Wisdom: A Sunday Rumination

     “Ve get too soon old und too late schmart.” – Originator unknown

     I mentioned yesterday that I’ve been exchanging thoughts with a colleague in this madness, another survivor from the founding days of opinion-blogging. Our exchange has mostly been about religious matters, but in his most recent missive he included something that jarred me:

     “Too bad it takes so long for us to realize that our parents were basically right about every danged thing, ain’t it? Well, some of us, anyway.”

     My impulse upon reading that was to double-check the sender tag. It’s essentially what I’ve been muttering to myself for several years.

     Far too many members of the Baby Boom generation owe our parents a heartfelt apology for having been such arrogant idiots...to say nothing of a huge debt of gratitude that they put up with us nonetheless. It’s among the greatest of tragedies that the harm one has done, especially harm done to himself, only becomes clear as he nears the end of his life.


     “Keep the old so long as it is good, and take the new as soon as it is better.” – from a Salada tea bag tag

     There is wisdom to be gleaned from tradition. Not all traditions, mind you; some are associated with “ways” that arose from the necessities of times long past. A favorite story illustrates that nicely.

     Mary Smith was preparing a roast for the evening. As she had done for many years, before she put the roast into her roasting pan, she sliced half an inch off of each end and put the slices aside. Her ten year old daughter Jane, who was watching her, asked “Why did you do that?”

     “I always do it,” Mary replied.

     “But why?” Jane said.

     “Well,” Mary said, “your grandma always did it.”

     “But why?” Jane persisted.

     Mary was about to remonstrate with her daughter, when it occurred to her that there was “an easier way.” “Let’s call Grandma and ask her. I’m sure she can explain it better than I can.”

     And so Mary called her mother, put the phone on speaker, and said, “Mom, Jane noticed that I slice off the ends of the roast before I put it in the pan, and asked why. I thought you might be the best person to explain it to her.”

     Upon which the reply came at once: “I used to do that because my roasting pan was so small. I have no idea why you do it.”

     It should follow that not everything our forebears did is something to be emulated today.


There exists…a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I do not see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer, “If you do not see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it…”

Some person had a good reason for thinking (the gate or fence) would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.

     [G. K. Chesterton, The Thing]

     Human laws, customs, folkways, and institutions must be judged against the intentions of those who originated and maintained them. What were they trying to accomplish or prevent? Were they successful? If so, at what cost? Might there have been a better way? Might developments since then have obsoleted their aims?

     Sometimes the thing being judged by such questions migrates from intention to intention. For example, at one time people kept cats as a defense of sorts against rodents and other vermin. With only a few exceptions, today’s Americans don’t worry too much about rats in the root cellar. However, we still keep cats, for their beauty and the companionship they bestow upon us.

     The moral here is that things are done for a reason, and if the reason be “reasonable” – i.e., if the end in view is a worthy one and the means chosen for it is moral, effective, and adequately efficient – then the thing is itself worthy and not to be lightly discarded.

     In some cases, the original motivation will ultimately change, as it was with cats. In others, an underlying premise will be found dubious, yet the practice will persist because it serves a need the originators didn’t foresee. The central need is to know what you’re doing – or refraining from doing – and why.


     “Most people are willing to give up their preconceptions, once they’ve had them tattooed on their heads with a blunt instrument.” – Keith Laumer

     A lot of the above probably strikes my Gentle Readers as “too obvious to need saying.” Time was, I would have agreed with them. Not today. We’re in the middle of a nationwide lesson in why our parents and grandparents were not buttheads.

     Some of the things our parents and grandparents tried to tell us, including a few against which recent generations have staged wholesale revolts, are more important than ever:

  • All things have a price.
  • Don’t go where you’re not wanted: know who “your people” are and remain loyal to them.
  • All other things being equal, keep silent: you’ll learn more that way.
  • Tolerance is not approval and must not be taken for such.
  • You’re less likely to “get away with it” than you think.
  • Many a pauper was once a millionaire.
  • Give thanks for your blessings.

     There are others, of course, but as I look out over the vast sea of disgruntlement that constitutes our present age, the ones above strike me as the most imperative, the lessons so many of us rejected as youngsters that we desperately need to acknowledge.


     But this is a Sunday rumination, isn’t it? So I must have some aspect of the life of the spirit in mind, right? Well, as it happens, I do. It’s only this:

     God does not police Man. He has laid down the laws of nature, most important among them the laws of our human nature. Those laws are largely self-enforcing. It is the immutability and universality of those laws that impels the thoughtful man toward religious faith.

     But the religiously inquiring man must know what he’s about. All theology, no matter how interesting or inspiring, rests upon unverifiable, unfalsifiable premises. A successful religion must help its communicants to live right. A religion that insists that its communicants embrace misery or endure squalor will not long survive. Religions that survive and flourish are those which most effectively assist their communicants in living right: healthily, prosperously, and peacefully.

     The evidence is in: the grand champion of religions, the one that most effectively and economically conduces to “a life well lived,” is Christianity. Our parents and grandparents knew that, too. Many of us ignored them. Perhaps they put too much emphasis on what to do and too little on why to do it.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Cat watching horror movie.

H/t: Pundita.

Delicious wit.

Hilarious commentary by Jennifer Jones.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

The Resilience Of America

     This might strike my Gentle Readers as something of a “one-off,” a piece deliberately set at odds with most of what I write. I must admit, it’s come upon me all unawares, and from what source I cannot be certain. I can tell you only a few things about the context in which it’s being generated:

  • I’ve been in contact with a fellow blogger of equal lineage, about subjects of great import.
  • I’ve been listening to Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds.
  • My essential defiance has confronted the naysayers, raised its head, and bellowed “No! It shall not be!”
  • And yes, I’ve been drinking.

     If you proceed hence, what you read might confuse you. I make no apology for that. Much of what I write requires more concentration than the typical reader is willing to give it and more erudition than the typical reader possesses...though in neither case does that apply to the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch. What I’ll say in my own defense is that for the first time in decades I am hopeful. Even optimistic.

     And I shall tell you why.


     There’s a lot of political commentary here. That’s most of the reason for this site: I like to write about politics. But politics is not a primary of life. It’s very much a secondary consequence, something that arises and acquires importance from more fundamental sources. The primary considerations often demand that we ignore politics – that if we were to grant it the importance that the politicos demand, we would soon find that a decent life had become unavailable.

     Americans have long cherished a view of political institutions as servants: agents charged with providing us certain services, rather than masters to which we are obligated regardless of any contrary inclination. The Left, of course, and much of the Establishment Right dislike that premise; they would prefer that we concede our subjugation to the State, that we might be more efficiently “managed.”

     The 2016 election makes plain that a substantial fraction – probably a majority – of the people of this nation are unwilling to be managed. We defied the luminaries, the pundits, the bien-pensants, and in many cases our friends, relatives, and colleagues to elevate a Queens real-estate mogul to the highest executive office in the land...and it’s driving those aforementioned luminaries, pundits, bien-pensants, friends, relatives, and colleagues completely batshit.

     “How could they have done this?” they wail. “We thought they understood!”

     That’s their problem, you see. We did understand. We grasped, in sufficient numbers adequately distributed, what was being done to us. We decided we didn’t like it, wouldn’t have it, and reached for the sole available alternative. That alternative will be inaugurated this coming Friday.

     The thunderous denunciations that have followed our clearly declared choice have only intensified our resolve.


     I’ve said it before: I was dubious about the suitability of Donald Trump as president. Events subsequent to the election have greatly improved my peace of mind. But that’s the most superficial aspect of our current condition.

     I’m here to tell you a thing you might not be willing to believe. It’s pretty grandiose. Many members of the elite would piss on it from a great height. “Who is he to say such things?” they might write. I’ll tell them who I am: I’m brighter, more knowledgeable, and above all more moral and ethical than the lot of them. And I intend to jam their presumptions right up their supercilious asses.

     We are the inheritors of the Founding Fathers. We are the conservators of freedom.

     And we will defy the self-nominated “better sort” as it pleases us.


     We’ve endured quite a lot of chastisement – verbal, of course – from the “better sort.” They didn’t expect us to wave them aside. After all, we’d kowtowed to them regularly, even reliably, for decades. Their reaction to having been disregarded gives new meaning to the neologism butthurt.

     Their consternation is equaled by our glee. We were uncertain, you see. We feared that they would find some way to punish us for “going off the reservation.” But it hasn’t happened. All they’ve ever had is their supercilious attitude and their words, and that has at last been made plain.

     “You think politicians are important because the papers tell you so.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, The Black Cloud.

     That goes doubly for the hangers-on that have supported them with their oraculations.

     I sometimes wonder why anyone has ever heeded them. I wonder twice as intensely why I should have granted them the least amount of respect, when I could give the highest of them cards and spades and still make them look ridiculous.


     The rebellion has begun. The bien-pensants have lost all traction. The Punditocracy is paralyzed with fear, its future having been made uncertain beyond all prognostications. The politicians themselves? They have no idea what’s coming. But of one thing we may be certain:

     Their fate will be ours to determine.

     The Europeans have accepted their yokes and fetters meekly. They’re accustomed to thinking of themselves as subjects unworthy of the privilege of self-governance. Americans are of a different breed.

     Fisher Ames, of the Founding Fathers the most disdainful of the common men of America, coined the phrase “The people are a great beast.” That has been reversed: We, the “beasts” whom Fisher Ames and his inheritors despised, have remembered that we are a great people – and we shall not forget it.

     We have endured a century of creeping totalitarianism...and have opted to throw it off. We have been told that the process is irreversible...and have elected to reverse it. Our intellect and our sensibilities have been derided by the whole of the elite...and we have chosen to disregard them.

     We mean to take this country back, to make it once again the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave...and we will.

     Do your part.

The Passion Of The Compassionate Left

     The unvarnished truth is that almost all the people you meet feel themselves superior to you in some way, and a sure way to their hearts is to let them realize in some subtle way that you recognize their importance, and recognize it sincerely. – Dale Carnegie

     Do you have a high opinion of yourself? That is: Do you believe yourself to be generally superior to others? Not in one specific aspect of intellect, ethics, or competence, mind you, but essentially across-the-board, with maybe one or two areas of deficiency you’ll humbly concede if pressed?

     If so, you’re not alone; far from it. Peters and Waterman noted that tendency among us more than thirty years ago. They also noted how important it is to our drive to achieve. For a truly realistic man, whatever he thinks of himself, is aware, even if only subconsciously, that his high opinion of himself must be supported by actual accomplishment.

     So while it might be inadvisable to start conversations with new acquaintances by praising yourself to the skies, if you believe yourself to be a “winner,” you can relax about it. Just go out there and “win.” Do things: good things, things that will improve the lives of others (and not coincidentally, that will make you a mountain of bucks). Yes, yes, to follow that course you’ll need some actual talent at something, but virtually everyone is genuinely, objectively good at something. Find that something and get to it.

     This is not the passion of the Left.


     Courtesy of my referrer log, I’ve just encountered a fellow curmudgeon with a few good things to say. I hope he’ll permit me a lengthy quote from his latest:

     I’m aware coastal elites deplore me without clicking on Slate, having NPR drilled into my truck’s radio, or watching MSNBC’s talking heads. But, in the interest of paying attention to those who hate me, I tuned in. This one needs a fisking; good and hard.

     Let’s start with my failings. They’re still freaking out and I hadn’t absorbed that fact. I assumed nobody can stay pissed forever. Blissful isolation led me to expect the post-election hyperventilation was fading.

     At some level I get it. It was a shock. Finding out there are people who aren’t exactly like you is a tough lesson. I always thought that’s why two year olds are such brats. They’re learning the world exists independently of them. This guy didn’t realize the diversity (!) of the electorate and he’s working through it.

     I figured it was just a matter of time. Give ’em a week of burning cars or their own neighborhoods, then (for those with lots of spare time) a few more weeks of moping. Eventually being sad gets boring and you move on. Maybe tragedy mired lefty voters need to watch Inside Out, Pixar’s instructional video for children?

     Please read the whole thing. It’s a Schaum’s Outline in how to cope with a Leftist on a tear. But beyond even that, it beautifully illustrates one of the fundamental cleavages between the mindsets of the Left and the Right.

     To cram it into as few words as possible:

The Rightist believes his conviction of worth must be justified by personal achievement.
The Leftist believes his personal superiority entitles him to remold, silence, or defeat the Rightist, by whatever means are expedient.

     If you’ve ever wondered about the propensity of socialist and communist regimes to institute “re-education” campaigns for their “unreconstructed” subjects, there’s your explanation.


     One of the words I most despise, along with the sub-concepts usually associated with it, is compassion. Note how those on the Left wield this word as a shillelagh against those who differ with them. Note also how little personal investment the typical Leftist puts into compassionate (by his lights) undertakings. You can’t help but suspect that he’d rather not rub shoulders with the “oppressed” whose “sufferings” he champions; after all, look at where he’s chosen to live. He feels he’s discharged 100% of his “compassionate” obligations by voting the straight Democrat ticket. All else he leaves to the minions of the State.

     But he’s “compassionate.” If you differ with him politically, you’re not, no matter what you may do personally to assist those whose difficulties are no fault of their own. That judgment is the foundation of his “assumption of differential rectitude.” That’s his Weltanschaaung, and there’s little to be done about it.

     In quasi-humorous illustration of the effects of this attitude upon our discourse, we have this piece from the brilliant Joanne Nova. Savor it; it’s much too good to reduce to a pull-quote.

     By virtue of his superior “compassion,” the Leftist believes himself morally licensed to do anything at all that might advance his cause...even if he would condemn his chosen means were they to be used by a Rightist.

     The media, almost entirely composed of the “compassionate,” do their best to conceal, obscure, or rationalize low tactics when embraced for a Left-approved cause. This 2009 piece by Quin Hillyer is a beautiful case in point. I advise you to save it on your own computer, just in case something should happen to it.


     As usual, I’ve been circling around my point. That’s my style, as any regular Gentle Reader will know. But the point is sufficiently difficult for men of good will to grasp that in this instance at least, laying a solid foundation for it was important.

     Note the disjunction between the Leftist’s attachment to Democrat policies and the real-world results of those policies. Note how few Leftists are willing to criticize their political idols, even by implication, for having failed of their nominal objectives. News junkie that I am, I can’t remember ever hearing a major-media interviewer, graced with access to some Democrat luminary, pose a question at all like the following:

     “Mr. Democrat, you and your co-partisans have expanded the welfare state beyond all previous bounds, yet dependency in America continues to increase. You’ve harped on the importance of non-discrimination, diversity, and so forth, yet racial animosity has never been worse. You’ve preached the importance to peace of not having a ‘threatening’ military, yet as our military has shrunk, international affairs have become more violent. Do the evident failures of your policy prescriptions ever tempt you to re-examine them?”

     Questions such as that are only emitted by the “uncompassionate.” The Democrat will immediately classify such an interviewer as hostile, and resolve never again to be interviewed by him. His next interviewer will be one of the Good Guys – the left-liberals – with which the media are so well supplied.

     Mr. Democrat and his interviewer must have a priority in common to get along. They must share the passion of the Left for its conviction of intellectual and moral superiority:

The passion of the “compassionate” Left is for supremacy over others.

     That precludes ever questioning one’s own convictions or the premises on which they’re founded. It precludes being examined, rather than flattered, by the media. It demands that anyone who seems poised to resist control of his opinions, decisions, or actions be classified as “the enemy:” to be re-educated at the least, destroyed at the worst.

     After all, if you’re not solidly behind the Left’s program, you must be stupid, evil, or both, right? If you’re stupid, straightening you out for your own good would be the compassionate thing to do. If you’re evil, that’s not possible; all that would remain is a mercy killing, out of compassion for the poor benighted souls you might mislead if permitted to continue. The reinforcement for the Leftist’s own sense of superiority would be purely incidental.

     That is the passion of the Left.

Pearls of expression.

When the Russian feminist punk rock group Pussy Riot was arrested and sentenced to prison in 2011 for protesting inside a cathedral, they became known as free speech heroes. Protests were held outside the Moscow embassy in Washington, the usual suspect celebrity airheads like Madonna weighed in, and members of the band even starred on House of Cards where they stood up to a character clearly based on Putin. The Russian government convicted the band on the grounds that their actions were offensive to religious believers, a justification that is similar to that used by Western governments when they go after “racists” or “homophobes.” In this case, however, because the tribe that the state was protecting was white Christians, Western elites suddenly became free speech absolutists.[1]
Mr. Cooper's article is most insightful. Highly recommended.

Notes
[1] "Which Are the Real “Illiberal Democracies”?" By Jeremy Cooper, The Unz Review, 12/24/16.

Friday, January 13, 2017

For The Triskaidekaphiliacs

     Today is, of course, Friday, January 13. There are any number of triskaidekaphobiacs – persons who fear the number 13 and everything associated with it – who’ll leave their homes today in a state of fear and trembling...some only under duress. It’s one of the most common superstitions, with a history that trails off into the shadows of time. No one really knows how it started. As far as I know, no one has produced a “12 step program” by which to combat it. (It probably wouldn’t be popular in any case. The first thing a potential enrollee would say is “But my next step after that would be number 13!”)

     Equally obscure is the special superstition attached to Friday the 13th. All I’m certain of is that it didn’t originate with the movie. As every calendar year will contain at least one Friday the 13th, there will be at least one day each year on which the hard core triskaidekaphobiacs will endure an agony of apprehension.

     But as has often been observed, given any proposition there will always be more than one side. The C.S.O., for example, is a triskaidekaphiliac: one who celebrates the number 13 and Fridays the 13th in particular. Today is a big day for her and others who share this affinity. There will be party hats and hooters at the Fortress of Crankitude this evening, and very likely an especially festive pizza for our repast. (But please, dear, don’t order it with multicolored sprinkles again. They just don’t go with pepperoni and anchovies.)

     The number 13 was pretty big with some of the earliest Americans. Consider, for example, the Great Seal of the United States:

     Note all the following:

  • There are 13 stars in the ring at top center.
  • There are 13 letters in the phrase E Pluribus Unum (“Out of many, one”).
  • There are 13 stripes on the eagle’s shield.
  • There are 13 leaves and 13 berries on the branch in the eagle’s claw.
  • There are 13 arrows in the eagle’s other claw.

     Yeah, yeah, the 13 colonies became the first 13 states, so 13 figured pretty big at the time of the Founding. Still, the flag has been updated every time we’ve added a state; why has the Great Seal been left untouched? I doubt it has anything to do with reverence for our history; in what other regard has our political class ever shown itself to respect that?

     If you need a few more reflections on 13 and the ominous reputation it’s borne, here are a few places to go for them:

     Enjoy your Friday the 13th...and be careful to avoid tottery mirrors, black cats, and ladders, of course!

From Russia's perspective.

Denizens of America’s imperial city have trouble recognizing that the rest of the world does not view their motives as pure as those of the Vestal Virgins of antiquity. Alas, from a Russian standpoint, ignoring Moscow’s Balkan interests, dismantling Slavic friend Serbia, expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, absorbing old Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics, inviting Georgia and Ukraine to seek NATO membership, backing “color” revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine against Moscow’s interests, encouraging a street revolution against an elected, Russia-friendly president in Ukraine, and seeking to overthrow the Assad regime, a long-time Soviet ally, are not friendly acts.
"Newsflash: Russia Is Not the Soviet Union." By Doug Bandow, The National Interest, 12/29/16.

Obama, Clinton and Panetta and the disgrace that was Benghazi.

The example referenced by commenter Retired_ABN_1SG is Obama's vindictive and petty hounding of the Little Sisters of the Poor on the issue of providing birth control:
The example you provide, Mr. Heck, is both notable of his petty smallness and most worthy of revulsion to all morally directed persons. Only the most shallow and truly lost souls could argue against your point. But, I contend that there are numerous examples of just how pathetic this small, petulant, self-absorbed wannabe man will be remembered, with each representative of the background of the persons he sought to marginalize or reduce.

Mine personally is the Benghazi tragedy.

Those brave Americans fought like true American Warriors, covering each other numerous times while also unhesitantly exposing themselves to immediate danger if needed to help one another survive just a little longer, because they knew deep down inside that help would come.

They did not question whether or not it was even possible help wasn't just over the horizon. They were Americans by God; they knew that other Americans, at that very moment, we're packed tight inside Blackhawks and the pilots had the engines firewalled heading into Benghazi....at any second, they would hear a voice on the radio who was the pilot of an AC-130 ready to rain hell down on those intent upon killing them....they knew, that they would make it, if they could just hold on, because Americans never, never, PHOUCKING NEVER leave Americans behind.

Never.

For that, more than anything else, to me, I will never forgive either him, or the beast wife of Bubba, or panetta, or any of the others involved. . . .

Comment by Retired_ABN_1SG on "The one act that defined President Barack Obama." By Peter Heck, American Thinker, 1/12/17 (minor formatting, spelling changed).

Thursday, January 12, 2017

A Little Too Soon?

     “Do you plan to shoot at the King? A word of caution: Don’t miss.” – Ancient maxim

     If one were to assemble all the “journalists” and “pundits” practicing those trades today, and were to pose to them a single, imperative question:

     “Would you undertake to assassinate the president of the United States under any circumstances?”

     ...the answers might not be perfectly, uniformly negative. Some respondents might attempt to further define the circumstances postulated. Some might hedge their positions according to the “character” of the target-to-be. However, not one of those persons would unqualifiedly answer “Yes.” It would constitute a self-imposed life sentence of rigid separation from anyone in any public office.

     Of course! If a “journalist” were to admit that he might be willing to shoot at the King, the princes, dukes, counts, and barons would have a reason to fear him as well. It’s a danger no one in a high place would willingly court...and therefore, a possibility to which no one who seeks to practice the trade of “journalism,” in our time so heavily dependent on “access” to the highly placed, would ever admit.

     However, what “journalists” are willing to admit wouldn’t necessarily be congruent with what they’d be willing to do.


     Another bit of old wisdom pertains to consequences: specifically, that we may reasonably infer from a man’s actions that he intended the foreseeable consequences thereof. This is not quite water-tight: it wouldn’t apply to “gambles” with a significant downside that becomes real. No sane person hopes to fail, especially if failure would carry a large cost.

     He who gambles demonstrates a conviction: that in his opinion, the prize is worth the peril. His embrace of the risks involved is conscious and indisputable. That doesn’t soften the blow should his gamble fail. Certain “journalists” and “news media” are discovering that as we speak.

     If you follow the political news, you’re probably already aware of this bit of Trumpiana:

     The victim of that contemptuous dismissal was Jim Acosta of CNN. That media organ has been tireless in attempting to defame Trump: to cast doubt on his fitness for the office he will assume eight days hence. CNN’s efforts in that direction go back more than a year. It might have been the conscious intention of CNN’s management; it might have been a path unconsciously chosen by its lower-level employees. In either case, the gamble failed: CNN “shot at the King” – and missed.

     It’s a solid bet that CNN’s reporters will enjoy very limited access to the Trump Administration, if any. Trump is not known for forgetting a slight.


     The major media are not alone in their aversion to Trump. The “permanent government” and both wings of the Establishment in Congress dislike him just as much. What’s notable is the extent to which they’ve been willing to demonstrate that in the wake of his election:

     ‘I think it’s pretty sad when intelligence reports get leaked out to the press. First of all, it’s illegal. These are classified and certified meetings and reports,’ Trump said during a press conference at Trump Tower – his first since getting elected.

     Then he revealed the details of the stealthy sting he says he conducted on the nation’s senior spooks.

     ‘I’ll tell you what does happen. I have many meetings with intelligence. And every time I meet, people are reading about it,' Trump complained, possibly referencing reports on his classified briefings, which he has chosen not to receive daily.

     'Somebody’s leaking them out,’ Trump said, after inveighing against leaks generally.

     ‘So I said, "Maybe it’s my office. Maybe my office." Because I’ve got a lot of people … Maybe it’s them?’

     ‘What I did, is I said I won’t tell anyone. I’m going to have a meeting, and I won’t tell anybody about my meeting with intelligence,’ Trump continued.

     He even shielded one of his closest aides from word of the meeting.

     ‘Nobody knew – not even Rhona, my executive assistant for years. She didn’t know – I didn’t tell her. Nobody knew,’ Trump continued – drawing laughter from collected family members and staff.

     Having set the trap, Trump says the word leaked anyway.

     ‘The meeting was held. They left, and immediately the word got out that I had a meeting. So, I don’t want that. It’s very unfair to the country. It’s very unfair to our country what’s happening,’ he said.

     If someone at the helm of one of the intelligence agencies is leaking sensitive information – classified or otherwise – America has a serious problem. It would become far more serious were international tensions to rise further. But let’s not get too far off point. Would a director of an intelligence organ have done any such thing to a president-elect other than Donald J. Trump?

     No, I don’t think so either.


     Coups often occur within a government. Indeed, a coup undertaken without some degree of support from within the existing government or military will have a minuscule chance of success. The probability that someone inside the corridors of power is plotting against the supremo is proportional to the number of persons in those corridors. The probability that he’ll have confederates is the same.

     Any such plotters would naturally seek the assistance of powers outside the halls of State. Today, they would have instant allies in the media and the world of entertainment. They might feel that the odds are heavily in their favor, especially if their tactics had worked to stifle or confound other highly placed persons.

     The federal government of the United States is larger than it’s ever been before. Our media, even with the blows they’ve taken from averse public opinion, are many and powerful. The entertainment world commands the attention of millions. And the president-elect, who gained the office against opposition they helped to mobilize, has been unabashed in criticizing all of them.

     But their counterstrike was founded on an underestimation of the awareness and shrewdness of their target. They initiated it a little too soon.


     I had some fears about Trump. I was unhappy with his vulgarisms and doubted that his temperament would suit the responsibilities of the presidency. At the end I opted for him anyway, on “lesser evil” grounds. Since then he’s impressed me with his Cabinet selections and his unwillingness to conciliate those who attacked him. The episodes mentioned above have reassured me still more.

     As with all politicians, when Trump does right, he should hear about it – and those who’ve attempted to “do him wrong” should hear about it too. There are few other feedback mechanisms short of impeachment and trial. This is my contribution, for what little it’s worth.

     President-elect Trump, I misjudged you. I won’t do so again. Keep up the good work.

Whore at a Sunday school picnic.

Whore not pictured.
I hate to be a similarly out-of-place citizen in the polity now known as the nation that is indispensable, exceptional, and qualified as no other to lead and inspire lesser breeds around the world. I really do. But, I have just been wondering about this Obamacare thing.

But first, a detour through the spidery labyrinths of our much discussed Constitution whose original structure has for the last 80 years or so begun to resemble today's photos of modern Aleppo.

A mere majority of our Supreme Court justices has for a good long time taken to interpreting the Constitution as though it were a "living Constitution," something just there to provide a launching pad for fanciful ideas that have entered Their Enlightened Consciousnesses. That expansive and imaginative approach to what the Constitution says is, shall I say it, complete crap.

A better understanding can be acquired by internalizing this excellent passage in Chilton Williamson's review of Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century:

As Kent Masterson Brown (“Secession: A Constitutional Remedy That Protects Fundamental Liberties”) suggests, the meaning of the Constitution in respect of the relationship between the central government and the states is so extravagantly clear that neither intellectual density nor even incompetence can explain how the compact theory [Madison, Jefferson] was gradually overwhelmed and defeated by the nationalist one [Hamilton, Webster, Lincoln]. It was raw mental and political will that did the trick, abetted by intellectual dishonesty, demagoguery, and sheer mendacity.[1]
This brilliantly frames the fundamental issue of our Republic, namely, Does the Constitution mean (a) what it says or (b) what five excellent, caring, leftist[2] members of the Supreme Court say it means?

If the meaning of the Constitution is determined in accordance with the approach in (b) then we get what we see today – a made up, floundering country that is controlled by a massive federal government populated by officials and politicians egged on by a massive, sycophantic media monopoly who are simply unreachable by the ostensibly sovereign people, or, possibly reachable only with the investment of enormous sums of money, time, effort, and expertise. The lottery has better odds of a satisfactory outcome and what we're left with is a giant middle finger salute to representative government, courtesy of treasonous progressives, the most beautiful and deserving of our people.

The fact of Obamacare is but one of thousands of crushing, asinine initiatives undertaken by the federal government. Obamacare's complexity and expense are stunning as can be seen and inferred from this chart prepared to illustrate the whole tedious structure:

So, my question is, Where does it say in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that the U.S. government has any power to legislate anything relating to health care (outside of health care for the armed forces)?

Answer: there is no such power in that Section and it is a tragedy to see Ryan and every violator of his or her oath to support and defend the Constitution pretend that there is any need for them to come up with a replacement for Obamacare. Mr. Trump is similarly set on an unconstitutional course.

So why are these fools acting like it's their sacred duty to "do something" about health care at the federal level? I and a few other citizens raise this issue but the ones with contempt for the Constitution swan about like princes living princely lives off of the public dime.

Who's out of place?

Notes
[1] "The Long March Through the Constitution." By Chilton Williamson Jr., Chronicles Magazine, 5/1/14 (subscription required)(emphasis added).
[2] "Like many other progressives of his day, [Louis] Brandeis was tired of outmoded 18th century conceptions of liberty." – Richard A. Epstein quote in Conservapedia. "Outmoded" as defined by Brandeis. Simple as pie. You agree, of course.

The innate destructiveness of the left.

The left acts as an impulsive and rebellious force that legitimizes itself through morality, then it takes advantage of the masses. This passion based morality enables them to question everything that exists outside of them and, because it is rebellious, it seeks to destroy; directly, through revolution, or indirectly, through social reform or societal change. This does not mean that change or reform cannot take place outside of the left and its claims.

This inherently becomes incompatible with millennia of western thought that makes [sic] the west “The West.[1]

Leftists illustrate one of my favorite Yiddish sayings:
Send a fool to close the window and he'll close them all over town.
As Vergilius Rex points out, leftism is a rebellious force. But, once it successfully achieves one goal, it takes that goal and creates another problem to be solved that is relating to the last problem. Or not.

There is no point at which the leftist says the present is a just and workable thing. No. The leftist, the impulsive and eternal rebel, continues until the result is grotesque. Every healthy plant planted by the ancestors must be ripped out by its roots and the most idiotic, the most unnatural replacement presented as though it were the equivalent of ambrosia and free beer.

Black slavery in America? Abolish it! Then elevate blacks to the point where we have BRA, or Black-Ruled America, as Paul Kersey puts it. Complete with legal discrimination against whites and exactions from whites to finance black pathology, a new slavery. Anathematize whites who object and fawn over every black "leader" and political excrudescence like Black Lives Matter.

Discrimination against women? Again, give women the vote. Then hand them extraordinary legal weapons so that men flee from involvement, marriage and fatherhood lest they experience financial ruin and debasement of their parental rights. Now, too, there must be bare-breasted street marches, simulated abortions in cathedrals, and the abomination that is third-wave feminism with its worship of abortion, its hatred of men, and its hatred of the central institution of society that makes life livable and satisfying.

Address social and legal censure of homosexuality? Terrific. Then ensure that absurd notions of "sexual identify" are made mandatory, young confused children are injected with hormones of the sex that they are not, and provide for male freaks with real or pretend delusions of femaleness to get to use restrooms used by normal females (and to pound female MMA fighters). What could go wrong?

Provide assistance to families in need? Great. Then establish a vast, hugely-expensive mechanism for encouraging and subsidizing male irresponsibility, bastardy, sloth, ignorance, crime, and a rock-solid leftist voting bloc. Just what we need. A permanent tilt in the direction of socialism, irresponsibility, and crime.

Address some of the problems of poverty and disease outside the country? Great! Then throw open the doors of the country and import hostile, parasitic foreigners by the millions to debase the concept of citizenship and sovereignty, lay waste to the culture, and take jobs from citizens.

In this one area alone, leftism ensures not sensible amelioration of problems within sensible limits but wholesale destruction of the nation and its people.

And this does not even address the works of leftists who are not fools on a mission but malevolent and destructive monsters, whose goal is terror and dictatorship of a kind witnessed by millions since 1917.

I'm not sure what the author of the quoted passage thinks must be done. The West is founded on reason, not emotion, he argues and patriots should avoid political debate that is on the left's terms, namely, debate about policy based on emotion and morality (relativism) not reason. What that means in more practical terms I don't know. Just a bit of vagueness there in an otherwise good article.

Nor is compromise with the left an acceptable tactic. The left must be rejected wholesale. It's destruction has been enormous. Something for nothing or theft through the mechanism of the popular vote are just contrary to nature. We are witnessing the death throes of that approach now and, probably, economic collapse will be more forceful and persuasive on the necessity of adhering to fundamentals. Reasonable efforts to debate leftists have been a waste of time. Leftists are not interested in any search for the truth.

Notes
[1] "The Machiavellian Principle – The Key to the West." By Vergilius Rex, Black Pigeon Speaks, 10/22/16 (emphasis added except in last sentence).